Do people of faith lack reason?

Do people of faith lack reason?

Frank Mobbs

Theists, believers in the existence of God, these days are called
"faith heads". Often they describe themselves as "people of faith".
Schools are called "faith schools". The implication is that those who
believe in God ground their belief on faith, not on reason.

Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, trumpet that faith is belief
without evidence whereas science is evidence-based knowledge. Seeing
that belief in God and all beliefs associated with God are based on
faith it is irrational to hold belief in God and beliefs which follow
from belief in God.

Dawkins clearly articulates the assertion that those who believe in
God are irrational in that their belief is one of faith, not reason.
Allow me to quote him from The God Delusion:

"Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and
brooks no argument" (p. 308).

"The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory,
is that it does not depend on rational justification" (p. 23).

Is there any reason to hold that belief in God is based merely on
faith, defined as belief without supporting evidence or even belief in
defiance of evidence?

It is a fact that some people - lots of them - believe in God
without adequate supporting evidence or argument. To that extent, they
are irrational. However, the same applies to atheists. There are
atheists who can not produce the semblance of an argument for atheism.
To them the non-existence of God seems obvious, not needing argument.
We all have beliefs for which we lack adequate evidence or argument. So
there are irrational theists and irrational atheists. The irrational
atheists exhibit what Dawkins and others call "faith".

But if it is a fact that there are theists whose beliefs are based
on faith, as defined by Dawkins and others, is it not the case that
other theists believe in God on the basis of evidence? Is belief in God
necessarily without supporting evidence? That is Dawkins' position:
theists cannot possibly have good arguments for the existence of
God.

This view is taken for granted by many, including a British High
Court judge who ruled in May 2010 that Christian beliefs have no
standing in law because they are "necessarily subjective" and
"incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence".

That is a view supported by many theists who say belief in God
cannot be derived from evidence or argument and, indeed, it is
blasphemous to seek reasons to support belief in God. Representatives
of this view are influential theologians Karl Barth and Rudolph
Bultmann. Such a view rules out any attempt to offer reasons to believe
in God.

Evidence

A historical note: Christianity, Judaism and Islam have
traditionally presented themselves as rational religions, ones which
can be believed on good grounds, such as adequate evidence.

The Book of Wisdom, written about 50 BC to 50 AD, reads,
"Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and from good
things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is" (13:1); and it
goes on to adduce evidence for God.

The Christian, Origen (died 254 AD), in replying to his skilled
Jewish opponent, Celsus, who said Christians were ordered not to reason
but believe, wrote: " ... if it were possible for all to leave the
business of life, and devote themselves to philosophy, no other method
ought to be adopted by anyone, but this alone [following reason and a
rational guide]."

Within Christianity, Judaism and Islam powerful arguments based on
evidence were developed which were not based on what Dawkins calls
"faith". The names of Sts Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and
Maimonides come to mind.

Catholics ought to be in no doubt that the existence of God can be
proved by argument, for the First Vatican Council in 1870 defined as a
dogma - a truth which the Church solemnly proclaims as a truth revealed
by God - that, "If anyone shall say that the one true God, our Creator
and Lord, can not be certainly known by the natural light of human
reason [ rationis] through created things; let him be
anathema."

From my observations, there are plenty of heretics amongst those
claiming to be Catholics, for they deny the dogmatic teaching of
Vatican I. "You can't have reasons to believe in God," they say, "for
that is a matter of faith", thus bringing joy to the heart of Richard
Dawkins & Co.

I can't think of any reason to accept such a view, whereas I have
reasons to reject it. Reasoning to God's existence is common amongst
some of the finest Anglo-American philosophers on our planet. Writing
in 2001 in Philo an American atheist philosopher wrote that it
has become academically respectable "to argue for theism, making
philosophy a favoured field of entry for the most intelligent and
talented theists entering academia today."

Philosophers who offer highly sophisticated sets of reasons for
believing in God include Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Germain
Grisez, Brian Davies OP, Barry Miller SM, Richard Swinburne and John
Lennox. Their belief in God is evidence-based, just as science is.
Scientists seek the best explanation for the evidence. So do theists
who posit God as the best explanation for the occurrence of the
universe and of its continuance. We can be confident that belief in God
can be rational, not based on Dawkins' idea of faith.

To quote C.S. Lewis, "Faith is the art of holding on to things your
reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods."

Dr Frank Mobbs is a former lecturer at universities and
seminaries in Australia and overseas and has written extensively on
religious issues. Email: fmobbs at integritynet.com.au